Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4227716" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think there may be some truth in this. But it's a delicate balance, because too much (for example) gamism at character build, or action resolution, runs the risk of making other playstyles impossible (because the whole game ends up revolving around victory over challenges, rather than the thematic significance of particular challenges).I don't fully agree with this. Pervy narratavism also gives power to the rules - it's just that the rules themselves allocate narrative power to the players as well as (or instead of) the GM. And successful gamist rules also have to give power to the players - hence the complaints that 3E and 4e give too much power to players at the expense of the GM.I don't fully agree. As a long time player of purist-for-system simulationism (RM) I found it pretty helpful in making sense of what I'd been doing for all those years, and getting a sense of why some things worked in the game and some didn't.Clearly Ron Edwards prefers narrativist play, but the essays are written so as not to expressly privilege one playstyle over another. Ron Edwards does characterise narrativist play as "ba..s to the wall" artistry which, leaving aside the unnecessary gendering, does suggest that he regards it as the most artistic form of play. I don't find that absurd, although I think it might exaggerate the quality or cutting-edge character of a lot of that art - in my experience most RPGers are not great novelists or movie directors just waiting to be discovered!But it doesn't follow that narrativism is the best form of play; that would require an argument, that I've not seen, that the pursuit of artistry is superior to other recreational pursuits. I see it this way: narrativist play is like writing short stories in your spare time, gamism is like playing team sports, and simulationism is like going to the movies (or, in its more thoughtful mode, like going to a book club). Unless someone knows a good argument that one of those recreational activities is inherently superior, I don't see any argument that one style of play is inherently superior (as opposed to subjectively prefereable for some person or other).This I don't agree with at all. Illusionism means the story is predetermined. Narrativism means the story emerges during play, as the primary purpose of play. Illusionism without player/GM antagonism would be a type of consensual high-concept simulationism. Well-GMed CoC would be an example of this, I think.As Lost Soul said, it's not easy to judge from that info. The bit's about immersion are common to all RPGing. The bits about mechanics likewise aren't GNS individuating: all they tell us is that you don't like 1st ed AD&D-style direct player-GM mediation of action resolution.Do you like your character and his/her story to be predetermined, and the point of the game is to have the GM lead you through that story? Mabye simulationism.Do you like to work out your character and his/her story in the course of play, as the main purpose of play (so you always succeed at that, even if your character doesn't always succeed at his/her goals)? Maybe narrativist.Is the whole bit about character story simply a vehicle for taking on the challenges that the game poses? Maybe gamist.My guess would be simulationist preferences, just because that's where many RPGers seem to default to ("simulationist by habit"). But it's hard to tell from the descriptions you give.</blockquote>

Verification